Title
Efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in schoolchildren: a systematic reviewEfficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in schoolchildren: a systematic review
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences. Pharmacy
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Research group
Epidemiology and social medicine (ESOC)
Laboratory for Microbiology, Parasitology and Hygiene (LMPH)
Publication type
article
Publication
London,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Malaria journal. - London
Volume/pages
14(2015), 12 p.
ISSN
1475-2875
1475-2875
Article Reference
450
Carrier
E-only publicatie
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Background: Intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) is a proven malaria control strategy in infants and pregnancy. School-aged children represent 26 % of the African population, and an increasing percentage of them are scholarized. Malaria is causing 50 % of deaths in this age group and malaria control efforts may shift the malaria burden to older age groups. Schools have been suggested as a platform for health interventions delivery (deworming, iron-folic acid, nutrients supplementation, (boost-) immunization) and as a possible delivery system for IPT in schoolchildren (IPTsc). However, the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of IPTsc is limited and the optimal therapeutic regimen remains controversial. Methods: A systematic search for studies reporting efficacy and safety of IPT in schoolchildren was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials and WHO/ICTRP database, and abstracts from congresses with the following key words: intermittent, preventive treatment AND malaria OR Plasmodium falciparum AND schoolchildren NOT infant NOT pregnancy. Results: Five studies were identified. Most IPTsc regimes demonstrated substantial protection against malaria parasitaemia, with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) given monthly having the highest protective effect (PE) (94 %; 95 % CI 93-96). Contrarily, SP did not provide any PE against parasitaemia. However, no IPT regimen provided a PE above 50 % in regard to anaemia, and highest protection was provided by SP+ amodiaquine (AQ) given four-monthly (50 %; 95 % CI 41-53). The best protection against clinical malaria was observed in children monthly treated with DP (97 %; 95 % CI 87-98). However, there was no protection when the drug was given three-monthly. No severe adverse events were associated with the drugs used for IPTsc. Conclusion: IPTsc may reduce the malaria-related burden in schoolchildren. However, more studies assessing efficacy of IPT in particular against malaria-related anaemia and clinical malaria in schoolchildren must be conducted.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000364626800001&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000364626800001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Full text (open access)
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/259c27/129542.pdf
Handle